Metropulse reports that Boggs later clarified her actions in an interview. “I didn’t want his hate in my restaurant,” she said. “I told him he wasn’t welcome here. … I feel like he’s gone from being stupid to being dangerous, and I wanted to stand up to him.” Boggs is also due to appear on HuffPost Gay Voices Editor-at-Large Michelangelo Signorile’s radio program on SiriusXM OutQ today to talk about the experience.

Many have been quick to applaud Boggs’ actions on Facebook. “You didn’t unfairly discriminate against Stacey Campfield,” one user praised. “You have the right to refuse service to anyone, especially a poorly educated bigot.”

Still, another user added, “Denying service to a man because you don’t agree with his opinions is no different than denying service to a man because you don’t like his skin color.”

“Most people realize that AIDS came from the homosexual community — it was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, if I recall,” he said in the interview. “My understanding is that it is virtually — not completely, but virtually — impossible to contract AIDS through heterosexual sex…very rarely [transmitted].”

So you take a year to write a book on your heroic life and few people are interested in reading it. It’s at 343,222 on the Amazon ranking and sinking fast. What to do?

Easy. Take a page out of Arizona’s Gov. Jan Brewer’s playbook and start a confrontation with the President of the United States the next time he comes by for a visit. Make sure photographers get a good pic of you wagging your finger at the President in a manner which suggests he’s getting a well deserved scolding. And should the President not take the bait and instead remains cool and calm, follow Jan’s lead: spin the hell out of the story and tell the world how tense and awful it all was.

…the governor has used her version of the encounter to get plenty of air time, seeing an increase in sales of her book which she has called a “truth telling” tome. Amazon ranked “Scorpions for Breakfast” at No. 7 on its best sellers list on Friday. The day of the event, the book had been at No. 343,222.

It’s that easy. So go out there and put together that book you’ve always dreamed of writing. Worry little about the writing style and even less about making it truthful. It matters not. Brewer has been going around saying that her dad died fighting Nazis in WWII even though he died from lung cancer in California in 1955. So don’t get caught up in thinking your book has to be factual. It doesn’t. All that counts is that the book makes youlook good and everyone else comes off as a putz.

Once the book is published, practice your ‘ooh, the big black man is scaring me’ look in the mirror. Do all that and you’re ready to invite Barack Obama for Sunday brunch and watch your book sales soar.

Share this:

Like this:

From the subtle to the sickening, this Republican primary season has seen a normalizing of racist and racially-coded language. It was not so long ago that the chairman of the Republican National Committee apologized for his party’s history of “trying to benefit politically from racial polarization,” and told the NAACP, “I am here today as the Republican Chairman to tell you we were wrong.” Such leadership cannot be found now.

Newt Gingrich may be the new master of race politics with his efforts to label Barack Obama the “food-stamp president” and his generous offer to lecture African-Americans at the NAACP on why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps. We know that Mr. Gingrich’s claims of being a “historian” for Freddie and Fannie are a strain, but would it be that hard for him to check the history of NAACP’s leadership on developing and demanding groundbreaking job creation policies? (Or to note that more food stamp recipients are white than any other race or ethnicity?) But why would a historian let facts get in the way of historical racial prejudice?

ThinkProgress’ Jeff Spross has compiled a recent history of the GOP’s dehumanizing and divisive language that threatens to plague the primary process for weeks to come. Watch it:

I saw this week’s Bill Maher Show and it was rather disappointing because Bill’s two right-wing guests dominated the show.

I specifically watched to see political commentator and host Martin Bashir who’s afternoon show on MSNBC is my number one DVR priority for that time slot. However, Mr. Bashir hardly got a word in because of the two aforementioned extremely talkative wing-nuts.

However, Bill Maher did indeed score big on his question and then analysis on Saul Alinsky, the guy Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, and Fox News always compare the President to on their programs…

One of Newt Gingrich‘s most bizarre lines of attack against liberals and President Obama is that they’re basically working from the playbook of Saul Alinsky. This has been a rally cry of his for months now. Most of us who aren’t that aware of early 20th century political activists have no idea who the hell Saul Alinsky is, but luckily, Bill Mahergave everyone a primer on who this insidious man is on his show tonight. And what he discovered is that it’s not just Newt Gingrich, but also Glenn Beck, who has turned Alinsky into the latest liberal boogeyman.

Maher joked that for Alinsky to garner the ire of Newt, he must be a divorce lawyer or something. And he admitted that even as a member of the evil liberal media, he had no idea who the actual fuck this person is. But after a quick Wikpedia search, Maher realized that Alinsky is best known for being a civil rights advocate in the 1950s. Like the president, Alinsky was a community organizer, but the chances of them ever swapping notes are pretty slim, mostly because Alinsky died during Obama’s preteen years.

But the Alinsky line of attack was not the main target of Maher’s new rule, but rather the Republican attempts to paint Obama as someone he is clearly not. Maher went down the list of attacks (including a small dig at Dana Rohrabacher‘s comments from earlier in the show).

“This is how politics has changed. You used to run against an actual president. But now you just recreate him inside the bubble and run against your new fictional candidate.”

Maher argued that as partisan and occasionally hyperbolic as George W. Bush‘s critics were, at least they were attacking the actual person. But for Gingrich to actually accuse Obama of being “anti-work,” Maher suspected Republicans were operating on “a paranoid feeling about what he might do.”

As usual Mario Piperni sees things more clearly and logically than the Republicans he draws in his illustrations. He writes about their weird and sometimes crazy antics and depicts it perfectly with his drawings.

There’s no secret that I am a die-hard Piperni fan. Here’s yet another example…

From the compassionate conservative wing of the Republican party, Rep. Larry Pittman of North Carolina speaks out .

“We need to make the death penalty a real deterrent again by actually carrying it out. Every appeal that can be made should have to be made at one time, not in a serial manner,” Pittman wrote in the email. “If murderers (and I would include abortionists, rapists, and kidnappers, as well) are actually executed, it will at least have the deterrent effect upon them. For my money, we should go back to public hangings, which would be more of a deterrent to others, as well.”

How long before execution by guillotine for liberals and atheists is proposed by Republicans?

The surprise or concern is not that wingnut politicians say stuff like this. Republicans have been running on CRAZY for a while now. No, the real worry should be that enough Americans voted for this guy to get him elected.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus compared President Obama to Francesco Schettino, the Italian cruise ship captain who took off in a lifeboat after his ship ran aground at Isola del Giglio, Tuscany and is suspected of multiple counts of manslaughter.

“In a few months, this is all going to be ancient history,” Priebus said in response to a question about the brutal GOP primary, “and we are going to talk about our own little Captain Schettino, which is President Obama who is abandoning the ship here in the United States and is more interested in campaigning than doing his job as president.”

This is absurd. The GOP will stop at nothing to harass, humiliate and blackmail President Obama into conceding to their demands.

However, throwing around the word “impeachment” is mere hyperbole since they would need a majority in the Senate to succeed and although it may be by the narrowest of margins, the GOP do not have that majority and won’t have it in the near future.

Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist has long held a tight grip on the marionette strings of the GOP. Wielding undue influence as the head of the Americans for Tax Reform, Norquist ensures that Republican lawmakers sign his anti-tax pledge and threatens them with electoral defeat should they even think of deviating from it. Norquist has marked a successful few years, killing the deficit super committee agreement,batting downa tax increase on millionaires, and, of course, ensuring the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

Pleased with his headway, Norquist is now mapping out how he can ensure further anti-tax victories by securing Republican majorities. In an interview with the National Journal, he mused that a GOP mandate would obviously enact an extension of the Bush tax cuts, work to maintain a repatriation holiday for corporate profits, and even pass House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan that jeopardizes Medicare. But when asked what Republicans should do if faced with a Democratic majority that won’t keep the tax cuts, Norquist had a simple answer: “impeach” Obama .

NJ: What if the Democrats still have control? What’s your scenario then?

NORQUIST: Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach. The last year, he’s gone into this huddle where he does everything by executive order. He’s made no effort to work with Congress.

Norquist certainly revels in his power , but suggesting Republicans impeach the president over tax cuts is wildly outlandish. According to the constitution , the president, vice president, or public officials can only be impeached for “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Preserving a tax cut that gives more to the top 1 percent than the average income of the 99 percent hardly qualifies. But if Norquist’s only goal is to “crush the other team ,” it seems he’ll stop at nothing to do so.

I couldn’t agree more that lawmakers across the country who want to issue drug testing on welfare recipients should be tested as well. Having said that, I find it hilarious how quickly the Republican member of the Indiana General Assembly withdrew his bill when a Democrat amended the bill so that the legislators would be included in the testing…

A Republican member of the Indiana General Assembly withdrew his bill to create a pilot program for drug testing welfare applicants Friday after one of his Democratic colleagues amended the measure to require drug testing for lawmakers.

“There was an amendment offered today that required drug testing for legislators as well and it passed, which led me to have to then withdraw the bill,” said Rep. Jud McMillin (R-Brookville), sponsor of the original welfare drug testing bill .

The Supreme Court ruled drug testing for political candidates unconstitutional in 1997, striking down a Georgia law . McMillin said he withdrew his bill so he could reintroduce it on Monday with a lawmaker drug testing provision that would pass constitutional muster.

“I’ve only withdrawn it temporarily,” he told HuffPost, stressing he carefully crafted his original bill so that it could survive a legal challenge. Last year a federal judge, citing the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable search and seizure, struck down a Florida law that required blanket drug testing of everyone who applied for welfare.

McMillin’s bill would overcome constitutional problems, he said, by setting up a tiered screening scheme in which people can opt-out of random testing. Those who decline random tests would only be screened if they arouse “reasonable suspicion,” either by their demeanor, by being convicted of a crime, or by missing appointments required by the welfare office.

In the past year Republican lawmakers have pursued welfare drug testing in more than 30 states and in Congress, and some bills have even targeted people who claim unemployment insurance and food stamps, despite scanty evidence the poor and jobless are disproportionately on drugs. Democrats in several states have countered with bills to require drug testing elected officials . Indiana state Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) introduced just such an amendment on Friday.

“After it passed, Rep. McMillin got pretty upset and pulled his bill,” Dvorak said. “If anything, I think it points out some of the hypocrisy. … If we’re going to impose standards on drug testing, then it should apply to everybody who receives government money.”